Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

adobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#441

Post by t0bia_s »

egypturnash wrote: post #160
judge2020 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still on the fence for whether or not you should be able to opt out of training (I'm sure many artists would love to "opt out" of humans looking at their art if the human intends to, or might, copy the artists' style at some point).

hi, I'm an artist, I do not give a shit about other humans looking at my work, I am delighted when a younger pro comes to me and thanks me for what they learnt from my work. That tells me they were fascinated enough with it to look at it and analyze it again and again. I made a connection with them via my drawing skills. I am catastrophically unhappy at the prospect of a corporation ingesting a copy of my work and st…

Do you think Rembrandt know his fans? Until Renaissance, artist don't even signed their work.

We are making huge steps to promoting ourselves in last decades.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#442

Post by mikeiz404 »

open-paren wrote: post #81

Adobe employee, not in Creative Cloud. We got access to this in beta a week ago and it was an instant hit across the whole company. This is just the tip of the iceberg and there is a lot of really cool, in-house products around generative AI. The team is going to great lengths to make this ethical and fair (try and generate a photo of a copyrighted character like Hello Kitty or Darth Vader). I'm excited to see the fi…

Hey open-paren, do you know if the videos on this page are high fidelity mock ups or a demo of the current working beta?

From the wording on the page it sounds like these may be mockups:

> With the beta version of the first Firefly model, you can use everyday language to generate extraordinary new content. Looking forward, Firefly has the potential to do much, much more. Explore the possibilities below.

> Imagine generating custom vectors, brushes, and textures from just a few words or even a sketch. We plan to build this into Firefly.

> We’re exploring the potential of text-based video editing with Firefly.

> Get ready to create unique posters, banners, social posts, and more with a simple text prompt. With Firefly, the plan is to do this and more.

> In the future, we hope to enable Firefly to do amazing work with 3D.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#443

Post by louison11 »

dopeboy wrote: post #11

What this reinforces is that unlike with previous big innovations (cloud, iphone, etc), incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave. They are aggressively integrating it into their products which (1) provides a relatively cheap step function upgrade and (2) keeps the barrier high for startups to use AI as their wedge. I attribute the speed at which incumbents are integrating AI into their products to a…

> “incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave.”

Yes, because they are already technology companies who understand tech. In the disruptive times of the Internet, then iPhone (mobile Internet), the companies being disrupted were not tech companies, so they didn’t know how to catch up.

This time this is a massive tech improvement, but in a market already saturated by key tech power players who are in prime position to implement these improvements into their existing competitive advantage.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#444

Post by spoiler »

exodust wrote: post #408
spoiler wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite the same... And I'm not sure how people on HN of all places are failing to grasp that these algorithms aren't sentinet, much less people. I think this is incredibly cool technology, but using other people's property without their consent is stealing (I'm not talking about legality, but morality here). The second reason why it's not the same is that people can't look at X million pictures and become pro…

> thousands of different art styles Are you saying all those art styles are original? They are not. Artists influence artists. Sometimes the influence is strong, other times just a glimmer. Perhaps the burden of responsibility shouldn't be on Ai machine learning, but the human prompt author who chooses the instruction: "...in the style of Jo Blow". Who owns the ethical dilemma in that case? Who is being unfair to Jo…

I think this is a futile discussion. I think originality certainly exists, and I've seen it may times in the art world.

I could be wrong, but you seem to imply originality is a made up concept? Do original thoughts even exist?

Are our comments original or just regurgitation?

Do you believe nothing ever created throughout history is original then?

If you believe originality does exist, where and how do you draw the line?

I don't think people are as boring as you think they are. Or maybe you just don't appreciate art. I can't tell. Some people say they do, but they really don't.

And further, even if we do ignore originality as a concept and pretend for the sake of the argument it doesn't exist, someone still values that style or approach to creation. That probably makes a living based on the subjective value it brings to the table. They sold their work. An AI company now profits off of their work, having used it in an algorithm, without paying anything to those artists.

As an experiment: Give me an example of something you've made yourself that you valued enough to sell, and then tell me why I deserve to have it for free. Maybe that will help me understand. Maybe you can work for me for free?

If none of their work was original or valuable, why even train on it, and why can you even ask for "in style of X"?

Also, the approach of waving responsibility onto individuals is too naïve. If that worked, we'd not need laws or any type of regulation.

Anyway, even with this diatribe I still don't think AI is a bad thing or that it will replace people or or their work—in its current iteration at least. It'll probably improve it, but I certainly understand why people feel violated.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#446

Post by qikInNdOutReply »

mesh wrote: post #124
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing a fundamental reason: adding AI functionality into products is simply easier. That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. The examples you gave of of cloud and iPhone have both huge capital barriers to entry, and in iPhones case other phone companies just didn't have the unique design talent combination of Jobs an…

>That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. fyi, for Adobe Firefly, we are training or models. From the FAQ: "What was the training data for Firefly? Firefly was trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content and public domain content, where copyright has expired." https://firefly.adobe.com/faq (I work for Adobe)

Public domain content. So if i host a large cluster of AI generated lighthouses that slightly look like cocksOnTheRocks, Firefly will suggest that after crawling and retraining?

What a time to be alive.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#447

Post by addandsubtract »

mikeiz404 wrote: post #442
open-paren wrote: post #81

Adobe employee, not in Creative Cloud. We got access to this in beta a week ago and it was an instant hit across the whole company. This is just the tip of the iceberg and there is a lot of really cool, in-house products around generative AI. The team is going to great lengths to make this ethical and fair (try and generate a photo of a copyrighted character like Hello Kitty or Darth Vader). I'm excited to see the fi…

Hey open-paren, do you know if the videos on this page are high fidelity mock ups or a demo of the current working beta? From the wording on the page it sounds like these may be mockups: > With the beta version of the first Firefly model, you can use everyday language to generate extraordinary new content. Looking forward, Firefly has the potential to do much, much more. Explore the possibilities below. > Imagine gen…

The upscaling example is 100% just a downsampled image. Really makes you question the rest of the demos.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#448

Post by easyThrowaway »

mesh wrote: post #226
egypturnash wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am definitely glad to see attention being paid to ethical sourcing of training images but I am curious: did the people who made all those stock images get paid for their work being used for training? Did they check a box that explicitly said "Adobe can train an AI on my work"? Or is there a little clause lurking in the Adobe Stock agreement that says this can be done without even a single purchase happening?

We are working on a compensation model for Stock contributors for the training content, and will have more details by the time we release. The training is based on the licensing agreement for Adobe contributors for Adobe Stock. (I work for Adobe)

Hope I can get better rates from this compared than those offered by Spotify to my musician friends. How much are we talking about? 0.00001¢ per licensed generated image?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#449

Post by easyThrowaway »

unreal37 wrote: post #219
egypturnash wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am definitely glad to see attention being paid to ethical sourcing of training images but I am curious: did the people who made all those stock images get paid for their work being used for training? Did they check a box that explicitly said "Adobe can train an AI on my work"? Or is there a little clause lurking in the Adobe Stock agreement that says this can be done without even a single purchase happening?

Nobody owes creators who have been paid fully for their work "extra" compensation just because AI is involved. Assuming they have been paid, the work belongs to Adobe.

Switch "creators" with "musicians" and "AI" with "streaming" and I we feel like we went back to early 2000. Same arguments.

Adapting what Steve Albini said at the time: If you're an artist, negotiate your future "AI training rights" separately. Make sure they're in writing. Make sure attribution rights stay yours.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#450

Post by ChildOfChaos »

dopeboy wrote: post #11

What this reinforces is that unlike with previous big innovations (cloud, iphone, etc), incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave. They are aggressively integrating it into their products which (1) provides a relatively cheap step function upgrade and (2) keeps the barrier high for startups to use AI as their wedge. I attribute the speed at which incumbents are integrating AI into their products to a…

I think the other thing driving this is the market / investors.

Companies have to get involved in this field because it's all the buzz, while everything else you said is true, this means companies have no choice to get involved.

If someone like Adobe, google etc, doesn't get into the game, they are sure going to be a lot of questions on there next investment / financial calls.

The incumbents need to keep up appearances and not look like they are behind / unaware of AI, else investors will be worried that they will simply be sidelined/replaced at some point in the future.

Post reply on HN